Will the WOMEN'S MARCH fizzle like OCCUPY WALL STREET?

Is protest broken? Disruptive tactics have
failed to halt the rise of Donald Trump.
Movements ranging from Black Lives Matter to
Environmentalism are leaving activists
frustrated.
Meanwhile, recent years have witnessed the largest protests in human
history. Yet these mass mobilizations no longer change society.
Now activism is at a crossroads: innovation or
irrelevance. Read
END OF PROTEST

Here's a MODEL FOR
ACTION :-
One representative from the Sierra Club acted
as a catalyst and facilitator to inspire local action against a Coal
Polluter.YEARS OF
LIVING DANGEROUSLY
We must train leaders to go to the FRONT LINES
( in SWING STATES )

Here's a Parody Ad – that ran
on Fox News –that Turns
Trump Campaign Rhetoric on Its Head --(Scheduled to run between 7 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. EST during
“Fox & Friends,” the AD likely was seen by millions ofRepublican Voters)

When the Republicans took power in 2004 the first thing they
did was to reward the Banks (who had financed
their election) with a Bankruptcy Bill --
(to allow banks to hound you till your death if you don't file for
Bankruptcy by selling your house first).
Were there any ADs on TV in the
Swing States telling voters of this ? No! Don't wait till 3 months before the next election.

How do we show
Republicans in these Swing States these repressive Bills and acts in Congress (and Committee), that are
against their interest, -- as they happen!And don't wait till 3 months before the Election.

Somebody needs to be continually
rebutting FOX LIES.
Republican Voters are not watching MSNBC
so it needs to be TV ADS in
Swing States especially!

More than
a how-to manual for organizers, NO SHORTCUTS is how to build working-class power.
A dozen case studies of Unions and Social Movements seeking to effect change

Some supporters of
President Donald Trump believe just about everything he says, even when he’s
wrong. And Trump himself seems to have absolute confidence in his own
beliefs ? again, even when he is demonstrably wrong.

But there is a
psychology lesson that could help explain it, according to Cambridge
University-educated actor Stephen Fry, who was voted the most intelligent
person on TV in the United Kingdom.

For example, researchers found students who were least proficient often
overestimated their own abilities.

“The skills they lacked were the same skills required to recognize their
incompetence,” Fry said. “The incompetent are often blessed with an
inappropriate confidence buoyed by something that feels to them like
knowledge.”

That’s now known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

In a new clip that Pindex put together, Fry also explains how Salience Bias
and the power of repetition help shape views more than facts.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not
ignorance,” Fry says in the clip. “It is the illusion of knowledge.”

Democrats need to win 24 seats to take control of the House in 2018 and
defend 12 seats in districts that Trump carried.

House Republicans who hold seats that voted for Hillary Clinton

Florida's

27th

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Florida's

26th

Carlos Curbelo

California's

21st

David Valadao

Virginia's

10th

Barbara Comstock

Minnesota's

3rd

Erik Paulsen

Colorado's

6th

Mike Coffman

California's

39th

Ed Royce

California's

49th

Darrell Issa

Illinois's

6th

Peter Roskam

California's

25th

Steve Knight

California's

45th

Mimi Walters

Arizona's

2nd

Martha McSally

New York's

24th

John Katko

Texas's

23rd

Will Hurd

Washington's

8th

Dave Reichert

California's

10th

Jeff Denham

Pennsylvania's

7th

Pat Meehan

Texas's

32nd

Pete Sessions

California's

48th

Dana Rohrabacher

Texas's

7th

John Culberson

Kansas's

3rd

Kevin Yoder

New Jersey's

7th

Leonard Lance

Pennsylvania's

6th

Ryan Costello

House
Democrats who hold seats that voted for Trump

Minnesota's

7th

Collin Peterson

Minnesota's

8th

Rick Nolan

Minnesota's

1st

Tim Walz

Pennsylvania's

17th

Matt Cartwright

Wisconsin's

3rd

Ron Kind

Iowa's

2nd

Dave Loebsack

New York's

18th

Sean Patrick Maloney

New Hampshire's

1st

Carol Shea-Porter

New Jersey's

5th

Josh Gottheimer

Arizona's

1st

Tom O'Halleran

Nevada's

3rd

Jacky Rosen

Illinois's

17th

Cheri Bustos

65 Swing Districts

State

District

Category

Median income (dollars)

Bachelor's degree

Unemployment: All 16+ year olds

Non-Hispanic White VAP %

Black VAP %

Hispanic VAP %

Asian VAP %

Foreign-born rate

Language other than English at home

Less than 9th grade

High school graduate (includes equivalency)

Some college, no degree

Bachelor's Plus

Oregon

4

Left Behind

$43,138

15.4%

10.4%

87.1%

0.8%

5.8%

2.4%

5.3%

7.7%

2.7%

27.2%

29.0%

25.3%

Maine

2

Left Behind

$43,404

14.5%

7.9%

95.5%

0.6%

1.0%

0.7%

2.7%

6.5%

3.6%

37.6%

20.3%

22.2%

Illinois

17

Left Behind

$44,116

12.0%

9.3%

80.4%

10.1%

7.1%

1.2%

5.0%

8.9%

4.2%

35.5%

24.3%

17.9%

California

36

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$45,295

12.6%

13.8%

48.8%

4.2%

41.6%

3.4%

22.5%

40.7%

10.2%

26.5%

25.0%

20.3%

Ohio

10

Non-Conformist

$46,703

16.1%

8.9%

77.7%

16.3%

2.1%

2.2%

4.2%

5.8%

2.8%

28.7%

23.9%

27.9%

Michigan

6

Left Behind

$47,498

16.1%

8.6%

84.2%

7.8%

4.5%

1.6%

4.4%

7.0%

3.3%

30.8%

23.8%

26.1%

Arizona

2

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$47,507

18.8%

8.8%

67.0%

3.9%

23.5%

3.0%

11.1%

22.1%

3.9%

21.5%

27.2%

32.4%

Arizona

1

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$47,531

14.3%

11.9%

54.8%

2.3%

18.8%

1.7%

6.4%

27.6%

5.9%

27.0%

26.0%

23.5%

Illinois

13

Left Behind

$48,127

17.8%

8.2%

81.6%

10.0%

2.8%

3.9%

5.1%

7.3%

2.6%

31.3%

22.3%

29.6%

Pennsylvania

17

Left Behind

$48,600

13.3%

8.7%

85.9%

5.4%

6.3%

1.7%

5.7%

9.3%

3.3%

40.8%

18.2%

20.6%

Wisconsin

3

Left Behind

$49,851

15.6%

5.7%

94.0%

1.0%

1.8%

1.8%

2.4%

5.8%

3.1%

35.0%

21.4%

23.7%

Texas

23

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$50,003

13.7%

7.8%

28.0%

3.2%

66.6%

1.4%

17.0%

55.5%

14.6%

26.4%

20.6%

21.1%

Minnesota

8

Left Behind

$50,464

15.1%

6.6%

93.7%

0.9%

1.2%

0.7%

1.7%

3.4%

2.2%

33.7%

24.8%

22.2%

Arizona

9

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$50,832

22.5%

7.5%

62.4%

5.1%

23.3%

5.1%

14.5%

26.1%

5.3%

19.8%

24.3%

36.0%

New York

21

Left Behind

$51,255

12.4%

8.5%

91.2%

3.3%

2.9%

0.9%

3.5%

5.7%

3.5%

35.8%

19.2%

22.3%

Iowa

2

Left Behind

$51,261

17.3%

5.2%

88.9%

3.3%

4.2%

2.3%

4.6%

7.6%

3.4%

32.3%

21.2%

27.2%

Michigan

9

Left Behind

$51,550

17.6%

9.3%

82.0%

10.5%

1.8%

3.8%

10.9%

13.2%

3.6%

28.3%

23.1%

28.7%

Ohio

1

Non-Conformist

$52,272

20.3%

9.1%

72.8%

20.5%

2.3%

2.8%

5.3%

7.3%

2.9%

29.2%

19.5%

32.4%

New York

24

Left Behind

$53,034

16.6%

7.5%

85.1%

7.4%

3.4%

2.4%

5.7%

8.5%

3.0%

29.7%

18.3%

29.4%

Nevada

4

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$53,073

12.7%

11.3%

51.7%

14.0%

24.4%

6.0%

15.9%

27.7%

6.0%

30.3%

26.5%

19.4%

Iowa

1

Left Behind

$54,028

17.1%

4.9%

91.7%

2.9%

2.7%

1.3%

3.3%

5.5%

3.2%

34.2%

21.3%

25.1%

California

10

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$54,111

11.9%

14.2%

49.5%

3.2%

36.8%

6.9%

20.3%

38.8%

11.2%

28.5%

25.0%

17.3%

Oregon

5

Left Behind

$54,112

18.4%

9.5%

80.3%

0.9%

12.5%

2.8%

10.1%

17.3%

4.7%

25.2%

27.1%

28.7%

Pennsylvania

16

Non-Conformist

$54,296

16.1%

8.0%

77.1%

6.2%

14.4%

1.8%

7.2%

19.0%

7.1%

37.1%

15.2%

24.9%

Washington

3

Left Behind

$54,685

15.1%

9.2%

84.8%

1.4%

6.7%

3.3%

8.2%

12.1%

3.2%

27.4%

28.8%

23.3%

California

3

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$56,306

14.8%

11.2%

52.8%

6.4%

24.6%

11.7%

18.3%

30.7%

8.2%

23.8%

26.4%

24.0%

New York

19

Left Behind

$57,566

14.7%

8.5%

87.1%

4.4%

5.9%

1.6%

6.4%

9.3%

3.1%

32.0%

18.5%

27.2%

Nebraska

2

Non-Conformist

$58,344

24.6%

5.3%

77.6%

9.2%

8.6%

2.9%

8.3%

13.0%

4.3%

21.7%

23.7%

37.6%

Pennsylvania

15

Left Behind

$58,384

16.7%

7.4%

80.4%

4.3%

12.1%

2.6%

7.6%

16.2%

4.1%

35.6%

16.3%

27.8%

Iowa

3

Left Behind

$58,545

22.4%

5.2%

87.5%

3.6%

5.1%

2.7%

6.4%

9.3%

2.9%

28.7%

21.3%

31.5%

New Jersey

2

Non-Conformist

$58,584

16.3%

10.9%

69.8%

12.6%

13.0%

3.9%

10.5%

19.2%

5.6%

34.9%

19.0%

24.2%

Massachusetts

9

Left Behind

$62,099

20.1%

8.0%

89.4%

2.7%

3.8%

1.3%

9.1%

13.7%

5.2%

28.2%

19.1%

32.7%

Nevada

3

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$63,360

20.8%

8.5%

61.9%

6.7%

14.4%

13.5%

18.0%

24.6%

2.7%

25.0%

26.9%

31.6%

Michigan

8

Thriving Suburban

$63,541

22.9%

7.6%

84.8%

5.2%

4.0%

4.1%

7.1%

8.9%

1.7%

22.2%

23.7%

38.7%

Texas

32

Non-Conformist

$63,573

26.7%

6.6%

55.5%

11.7%

22.6%

8.0%

20.6%

32.6%

7.2%

17.8%

20.0%

42.1%

California

7

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$65,159

21.4%

11.1%

58.8%

7.2%

14.6%

14.9%

18.3%

26.4%

4.6%

21.1%

26.5%

32.1%

New York

11

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$65,480

19.8%

7.5%

64.4%

7.1%

14.4%

13.4%

29.5%

40.7%

6.6%

29.7%

16.1%

32.6%

New Hampshire

2

Left Behind

$65,822

21.2%

5.7%

92.6%

1.1%

2.6%

2.4%

5.6%

7.8%

2.5%

29.4%

18.7%

34.5%

Kansas

3

Thriving Suburban

$66,525

28.7%

5.8%

76.0%

8.5%

9.6%

4.1%

9.7%

14.1%

3.4%

19.1%

20.8%

44.9%

New Hampshire

1

Left Behind

$67,706

22.4%

5.8%

92.7%

1.3%

2.7%

2.2%

5.8%

8.0%

2.5%

28.2%

19.4%

35.2%

Connecticut

5

Thriving Suburban

$67,805

19.7%

8.5%

74.6%

6.3%

14.5%

3.4%

13.6%

24.2%

5.1%

28.6%

17.6%

34.8%

Colorado

6

Thriving Suburban

$69,909

26.8%

6.7%

66.3%

8.8%

16.8%

5.6%

14.7%

22.5%

3.9%

19.9%

22.6%

40.9%

Connecticut

2

Left Behind

$71,458

18.9%

7.7%

84.6%

4.0%

6.5%

3.1%

7.0%

11.7%

2.7%

30.0%

19.3%

33.7%

California

25

Diverse, Fast-Growing

$72,342

18.1%

9.9%

48.0%

7.8%

33.1%

8.5%

20.7%

31.4%

7.2%

22.8%

26.0%

26.9%

New Jersey

3

Non-Conformist

$73,485

21.3%

8.8%

78.5%

10.1%

6.4%

3.4%

8.3%

11.7%

2.5%

32.7%

19.5%

32.1%

Washington

8

Non-Conformist

$73,749

21.4%

6.9%

77.4%

2.6%

8.3%

7.8%

12.4%

17.7%

3.5%

25.4%

23.8%

32.3%

Michigan

11

Thriving Suburban

$74,873

26.6%

6.2%

82.3%

5.1%

2.8%

8.3%

12.7%

15.3%

1.8%

20.2%

20.4%

45.4%

California

49

Thriving Suburban

$74,916

25.6%

7.1%

64.9%

2.8%

22.8%

6.9%

17.1%

25.3%

5.5%

16.7%

21.2%

41.7%

Pennsylvania

6

Thriving Suburban

$75,159

25.4%

6.1%

86.2%

4.1%

4.7%

4.1%

7.0%

10.2%

2.5%

28.9%

14.7%

41.8%

Minnesota

2

Thriving Suburban

$75,564

26.2%

4.9%

85.9%

3.6%

4.5%

4.3%

7.8%

10.6%

2.0%

23.8%

21.7%

37.5%

Pennsylvania

8

Thriving Suburban

$77,839

22.8%

6.8%

87.2%

3.5%

3.9%

4.5%

8.4%

11.2%

1.9%

30.7%

17.6%

37.4%

New York

18

Thriving Suburban

$78,021

19.8%

7.7%

72.3%

9.1%

14.1%

3.2%

11.9%

21.1%

3.8%

26.9%

19.6%

34.8%

Minnesota

3

Thriving Suburban

$79,517

31.3%

4.9%

82.9%

5.9%

3.2%

6.5%

10.9%

13.7%

1.8%

18.4%

20.7%

47.0%

California

39

Non-Conformist

$79,814

26.5%

8.0%

34.8%

2.3%

30.0%

30.8%

32.9%

48.2%

6.2%

18.4%

21.8%

39.6%

Pennsylvania

7

Thriving Suburban

$80,607

24.1%

6.3%

86.7%

5.3%

2.8%

4.4%

7.2%

11.3%

2.8%

28.6%

15.6%

41.5%

California

48

Non-Conformist

$81,680

27.8%

7.4%

59.2%

1.2%

18.5%

18.6%

24.7%

34.1%

5.6%

15.2%

21.8%

43.5%

New York

1

Thriving Suburban

$87,272

18.5%

6.2%

78.5%

4.7%

11.9%

4.0%

12.3%

18.2%

3.4%

29.4%

18.2%

34.5%

New York

2

Non-Conformist

$88,543

17.0%

6.6%

66.5%

9.5%

20.2%

3.1%

17.2%

24.9%

5.7%

32.3%

18.2%

28.6%

Illinois

6

Thriving Suburban

$91,507

30.4%

6.3%

80.1%

2.6%

8.1%

8.4%

14.4%

19.9%

2.4%

17.5%

19.1%

50.5%

California

45

Non-Conformist

$92,378

31.9%

6.4%

55.7%

1.8%

17.0%

22.9%

28.2%

36.9%

3.5%

13.2%

19.6%

52.2%

New Jersey

5

Thriving Suburban

$92,550

28.4%

6.8%

72.5%

4.9%

12.1%

9.8%

19.9%

25.4%

3.3%

24.9%

16.2%

45.5%

New York

4

Thriving Suburban

$94,770

22.1%

6.7%

61.0%

14.2%

17.6%

6.2%

21.9%

28.9%

5.5%

25.1%

16.4%

39.9%

New Jersey

11

Thriving Suburban

$100,923

30.6%

6.6%

76.7%

3.7%

9.3%

9.3%

17.6%

23.1%

2.6%

23.2%

14.2%

51.2%

New York

3

Thriving Suburban

$101,806

27.2%

6.0%

72.3%

3.2%

9.2%

14.0%

21.8%

28.9%

4.0%

20.5%

13.8%

51.1%

New Jersey

7

Thriving Suburban

$102,551

29.1%

6.4%

74.8%

4.5%

10.8%

9.0%

17.7%

23.4%

3.0%

22.1%

14.7%

50.7%

How Democrats can win the House majority By
Washington Post, James Hohmann June 2017

They divided the swing districts into four categories:-

Thriving Suburban ,

Left Behind ,

Diverse/Fast-Growing , and

Non-Conformist Districts.

The numbers underscore how different even the 23 GOP-held Clinton districts
are demographically:-

Many are suburban and overwhelmingly white.

Others are rural and heavily Latino.

Within the broad categories, there are stark differences on :-

income,

educational attainment and

employment rates.

Demographics:-

how many people moved into a district over the past year,

what percentage of residents have access to broadband
Internet and

how many houses are vacant.

More than half of adults in New Jersey’s 7th District, for example, graduated
from college. Only 17 percent in California’s 10th District did.

“The most important takeaway is that there is no one
kind of voter or districtthat can deliver the House for Democrats in
2018,” . “There’s been a lot of focus on suburban districts. There’s no doubt
that those are important, but there are not enough of them to win the House.”

Democrats still would not win the House even if they could get every single 2016
Clinton voter who backed a Republican House candidate to cross over and without
winning over Trump voters.

Moderate Democrats worry that the party will
squander precious pick-up opportunities in the midterms,
and even allow Trump to get reelected in 2020, by nominating unelectable liberals.

Third Way believes Democrats must embrace ideological diversity to take back
legislative seats that were lost during the Obama era at the federal and state
level. “There are a lot of different kinds of candidates and policies we’re
going to have to welcome into the coalition to win,” Hatalsky said. “There’s no
single kind of candidate that would resonate in all these places. The idea that
we just need one kind of candidate – is not borne out by how different these
districts look.

We need to take a wider look at the kind of candidate
and agenda by District.